Secularization

Marked

It can be seen that an on-going debate by sociologists is the disagreement whether religion
encourages or inhibits social change. Most sociologists agree that as society changes and evolves
so will changes to religion. However, many have claimed that this change will lead to the
disappearance of religion altogether. It has been thought since the early 19th century that
industrialization and the growth of scientific knowledge, would lead to the decline of religion,
known as secularisation.

Emile Durkheim a functionalist did not see religion as hopeless. He looked more
at its function within society. He saw religion as maintaining social cohesion, a main part of
society where religion brought people together. However, he anticipated that religion was on
the decline of social significance. This is because in an industrial society where there was a
highly specialised division of labour, religion would lose a part of its power for integrating
society (Holborn, 2009).

This is where Durkheim believed the Education System would replace the religions part of
social solidarity, instead of religious rituals. The Education System can place religion where
it wants on the time table, not religion dictating to the Education System. This in itself shows
how it would lead to a reduction in religion. If religion is given less time in people's everyday
life, whereas before, in pre-industrial society people would spend as long as they needed
practicing and reading religious literature. The average 9-5 job and school timetable does not
allow this.

Durkheim, however, did not believe religion is condemned. He saw religion as maintaining
social cohesion, transforming from a traditional religion into a new form of religion. By
looking over the 19th and 20th century he saw a huge social change by industrialisation and
urbanisation as a threat to religion. This change led to the breakup of small communities and
in some places ones which were isolated (could be classed as back in time). Industrialisation
was destruction to the norms which dictated to previous behaviour. This resulted in a
collapse of social solidarity and collective consciousness. This is because the integration of
close knit communities, shared norms and values, was religions 'organ' to survive, without this its
future is uncertain (school, 2011).

Durkheim predicted that religion would be re-positioned to the corner of people's lives and
marginalized through industrialisation. This could be due to the fact businesses are structured for
profits and not the workers lives. He believed religion would be forced to be a private matter for
people, leading to privatization. On the other hand he did not see the decline of religion as an
irreversible trend; he saw that all societies must have some sort of sacred symbols and
communal ritual if they are to continue. This may show how even though Durkheim believed
religion would become less main-stream in people's lives; it would become a private matter,
but still strong enough to exist in a new form

Durkheim's outlook on religion, that it won't disappear it will just change shape in people's
lives. This could be due to the fact; he sees religion as offering a psychological and emotional
comfort. Where rationalisation on the other hand leaves an answer of a cold, isolated place of
existence where there is no bigger picture to life. 

Webber however, saw rationalisation as the main reason for a decline in religion. He
believed this would steadily replace faith. He believed that as the world is demystified of its
magic and mystery, religious beliefs are taken away. This is where things are made rational
and justified instead of 'acts of God' and linked to religion. Webber also saw a progressive
reduction in the importance of religion. He thought people would focus on the rational
pursuit of goals and answers, and focus less on emotions. He believed rationalization would
inevitably wash away religions influence. He predicted that a wide spread of scientific
knowledge and higher levels of education would lead to a more rational thinking world. 

Marx did not see that industrial capitalism as such would messenger the decline of
religion, but he did believe it would put in motion a chain of events that would eventually
lead to its disappearance (Marx and Engles, 1950a). Marx looked at religion as if it was there
to justify an inequality of the class communism, and religion would stop to have any social
purpose. 
However, Webber believes religion pursues the process of rationalisation. This is because he
saw that the capitalist society had its origins in Protestantism, particularly Calvinism thus
the spirit of capitalism was one of the main factors in the development of rational
capitalism. Once on its way there was no need for modern society and it no longer needs to
guide of religion reason was a sufficient guide. Once this happens there is no need for
religion, this leads to a loss of mystery, imagination and faith in the unknown. Webber looks
at the world a being taken over by objectivity and not subjectivity (Holborn, 2009).

Many more modern sociologists have followed the belief of many of the founders of
secularisation. They see that rational thinking will decline the belief of religion. As science
progresses it will over rule the more non-rational beliefs. This does not mean that the belief
of religion will disappear altogether. Instead they argue that in many ways religion will just
decline. 

Brian Wilson a leading believer in secularisation defined it as 'the process whereby

religious thinking practice and institutions lose social significance. His sociological
explanations are similar to Webber, where rationalization has overcome religion and has
become more significant to modern society; he sees questions like 'the existence of life' become
less important. However he sees things different to Durkheim in that he believes religion is
going through an irreversible decline in influence.

Wilson splits the reasons for secularisation into three categories. The first social differentiation,
he sees this as when the different institutions become separate as they specialise in different
functions. Religion was once associated in all areas politics, social welfare, health and
education etc. In modern society they have all become isolated and non-regulated by religion.
This leads religion to be marginalized, the same view as Durkheim.

Wilson agrees with Webber in as much as he sees rationalisation and scientific

advancements as the main factor in replacing religious views. Furthermore Wilson and
Webber both see Protestantism, contributing to rational thought. However Wilson does lean
more on the scientific side as being the bigger influence to the decline in religion. He believes
that scientific methods have displaced a lot of religious explanations. In 1966 Wilson quoted
"Science not only explained many facets of life and the material environment in a way more
satisfactory, but it also provided confirmation of its explanation in practical results. This shows
how Wilson believes that scientific advancements have significantly explained the world around
us in substantially more detail than religion, and for that reason it led to a decline in religion
(school, 2011).

Wilson also sees the decline of community, a large contributing factor to the decline. He
believes that, in pre-industrialization times, religion helped pull people together. Through
close knit communities, their communal values were expressed and upheld in religious
ceremonies. Large community events such as birth, marriage and even death where encased with
religious values, they were celebrated leading them through the local church (Bryan Wilson,
2004).

Like Durkheim, Wilson believes industrialisation was a large significance to the defeat or
decline of religion. Wilson has linked these findings to the rise in rational thinking, and
advances in scientific knowledge in modern society. He also sees that religious institutions that
were once involved in politics, social control, social welfare, are now discounted and no
longer have social influence. This shows how in the future this new circle of movement may
continue, and religious practices may be replaced by more rational views and scientific
knowledge (Bryan Wilson, 2004).

On the other hand a major problem with the ideology of secularisation is that different
sociologist gives different evaluating theories of secularisation. This is because there is no
agreed definition. This was seen when Glock and Stark (1969) state 'perhaps the most
important attribute of those who perceive secularization to be going on is their commitment to a
particular view of what religion means' (school, 2011). 
Karl Marx looked at religion as coming to an end. He saw religion as a reflection of class
society; it would justify the position of the ruling class. Additionally it would serve the lower
class with faith of hope in life after-death and give the hope of a happier life for their
suffering on earth. However, Marx saw social classes and oppression would disappear in
communist society.

Marx looked at capitalism as processing the root of secularisation. The capitalist society
produces a materialistic society in the world. This is where its aim is to manufacture good
and produce profits. This leads to the social order being based on contracts rather than
being made by god, as the religious beliefs point to (Roberts, 2005).

Overall, all three perspectives do believe religion will decrease within modern society. The
Marxist has stronger views that religion will disappear altogether, where on the other side
Durkheim sees religion will decline but will not totally disappear. Webber brings up the idea
that religion has become more disengaged from society in the way of having less social
influence in institutions like politics and social-welfare and the government does not
represent religion as much in modern society.

Throughout this assignment I have looked at secularisation theories from four perspectives. I
have found in general they all point in the same direction, although they do contrast in certain
ways. Durkheim and Webber do seem to have the most similar view in the way they both believe
that religion is declining, however not totally disappearing just taking a different role in society.
Marx on the other hand has a stronger approach to religion, that it will die away from society,
Opposed to Durkheim and Webber that it will just become more marginalised. Furthermore they
all see that religion started with the industrial revolution. This happened when close-knit
communities were broken up and people moved to the cities, this enables people to have a more
rounded ration belied system.
Conclusion: